Spain

Organic Law 6/1985 of 1 July on the Judicial Power (LOPJ), Law 1/2000 on Civil Procedure of 7 January (LCP) and recent Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures regarding the efficiency of the Public Justice Service (“Law 1/2025”) regulate the structure and organisation of the Spanish civil and commercial court system, as follows:

• The Court of Instance is the entry point for commercial and civil litigation claims. There is a court of instance in each judicial district (partido judicial). Each court of instance has at least one civil section which holds general jurisdiction over civil and commercial matters in the first instance. A court of instance seated in a judicial district with more than 250,000 inhabitants also has a commercial section which handles corporate, insolvency, competition, transport, maritime and industrial and intellectual property matters.
• The Provincial Court of the province of the judicial district where the court of instance sits handles appeals against the decisions issued by the respective court of instance.
• The High Court of Justice of the autonomous community of the province where the Provincial Courts sits has jurisdiction to hear cassation appeals against judgments for infringement of specific laws of a foral autonomous community (e.g. Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque Country, Navarre, Aragon, or the Balearic Islands) when such jurisdiction is expressly conferred by its Statute of Autonomy. Spanish High Courts of Justice exercise certain functions accessory to arbitral proceedings, such as judicial appointment and removal of arbitrators; recognition of foreign arbitral awards; and hearing applications for the annulment of final arbitral awards rendered within Spanish jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court, in its First Chamber, is the final authority for cassation appeals in civil and commercial matters against the judgments issued by the provincial courts that do not fall under the High Court of Justice.

Commercial litigation in Spain is governed by the LCP and Law 1/2025. Commercial disputes subject to arbitration in Spain are governed by the Spanish Arbitration Law 60/2003 of 23 December (SAL).

Law 1/2025 requires the parties to attempt an amicable resolution of the dispute before filing a claim before the Spanish civil and commercial courts. This requirement must be satisfied through any of the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms provided for in Law 1/2025 (Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (Appropriate Means of Dispute Settlement); MASC), namely: mediation, conciliation, binding offer, expert determination, collaborative law and direct negotiation.

Law 1/2025 exempts the use of MASC in proceedings concerning the protection of fundamental rights, urgent measures for the protection and safety of minors, enforcement proceedings, applications for interim measure, preliminary proceedings (preliminary diligences), and proceedings for the enforcement of bills of exchange and cheques. In addition, Law 1/2025 establishes further pre-action requirements in cases involving floor clauses, general consumer claims and mortgage enforcement proceedings.

Initiating a MASC interrupts the statute of limitations applicable to the relevant claim. However, any judicial action relating to that claim must be brought within one year from the termination of the MASC procedure. The statement of claim must include evidence of the unsuccessful attempt to resolve the dispute through MASC, or a sworn statement attesting to such attempt. Failure to evidence compliance with the mandatory MASC requirement shall result in the inadmissibility of the claim pursuant to Article 403.2 of the LCP.

Arbitration and mediation are the principal ADR methods used to resolve complex commercial disputes. Negotiation, conciliation and expert determination are most commonly used to satisfy the mandatory MASC pre-action requirement.

According to official statistics published by the Spanish General Council of the Judiciary (www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Temas/Transparencia/Estimacion-de-los-tiempos-medios-de-duracion-de-los-procedimientos-judiciales/), in 2023 the average time to obtain a first-instance decision was approximately eight months in summary proceedings, while ordinary proceedings showed a significantly longer average duration of around 16 months. Proceedings subject to specific procedural requirements, such as the European order for payment procedure, reached average durations of up to 20 months. At appellate level, cases before the Provincial Courts had an average duration of approximately 12 months, whereas proceedings before the Spanish Supreme Court required substantially longer timeframes, with an average duration of around 25 months.

From a practical perspective, the experience of court agents in the Community of Madrid, based on the average period prior to a claim being formally assigned to a judge, is approximately three months. Once the court is seized of the matter, the average time to obtain a first-instance judgment in civil proceedings is around nine months, while appeals before the Provincial Court take at least one year. These timeframes are highly dependent on factors such as the number of submissions, the number of parties involved, the complexity and subject matter of the dispute and the specific region in which the matter falls. These estimates do not take into account the duration of the mandatory MASC procedure introduced by Law 1/2025.

Spain does not follow the Anglo-American discovery system. Disclosure in Spain is governed by the principle of party initiative and is limited to exhibition of specific documents and court-controlled requests (Article 216 of the LCP).

The primary disclosure obligation arises at the statement-of-claim stage, at which parties must file all documents on which their claims or defences rely. As a general rule, parties are precluded from submitting documents thereafter, except in the case of documents of a later date, or pre-existing documents of which the party was unaware or which it was unable to obtain, provided that the relevant justification is duly given (Article 270.1 of the LCP).

A party may request the court to order the production of relevant documents not in its possession, provided that the request includes either a copy of the document whose original is sought or, where the document cannot be located, sufficient details of its content to enable its identification (Article 328.2 of the LCP). An unjustified refusal to produce documents ordered by the court may result in compulsory production and/or the drawing of adverse inferences (Articles 329.1 and 329.2 of the LCP).

Pre-action disclosure may be sought where the documents requested are necessary in order to prepare the claim (Article 256 of the LCP). Certain areas of law, such as competition law proceedings and proceedings involving an independent expert opinion, are subject to specific disclosure regimes (Articles 283 bis (a) and 283 bis (b) of the LCP, and Article 18.1 of Law 1/2025).

Public authorities are subject to enhanced disclosure duties and may refuse production only where the information is legally classified (Article 332 of the LCP). Disclosure orders against third parties are exceptional and require proof of material relevance and prior hearing (Article 330 of the LCP).

Attendance at the hearing is mandatory under the LCP, and failure to appear without justified cause may result in a fine ranging from EUR 180 to EUR 600, as well as potential liability for disobedience (Article 292 of the LCP). Witness examination is conducted first by the party who proposed the witness, followed by cross-examination by the opposing party (Articles 370 and 372.1 of the LCP). Witnesses must give their testimony in person before the presiding judge (Articles 129 bis .2 and 137 of the LCP), although testimony by videoconference is permitted where the witness resides outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction (Article 364.1 of the LCP). The presiding judge may disallow irrelevant or unnecessary questions (Article 368.2 of the LCP) and may order a confrontation between witnesses where serious contradictions arise in their testimony (Article 373 of the LCP).

Spanish courts generally follow the “costs follow the event” principle. As a rule, costs are awarded against the party whose claims are entirely dismissed, unless the court finds factual or legal grounds to depart from that rule (Article 394.1 of the LCP). Where claims are only partially upheld, each party normally bears its own costs (Article 394.2 of the LCP).

Following the entry into force of Law 1/2025, Spanish courts may take into account the parties’ conduct and level of cooperation in any MASC procedure when allocating costs. In particular, the court may order a delaying party to bear the costs, even where the dispute is ultimately settled (Article 395 of the LCP). Conversely, a successful party may be denied or awarded reduced costs if it refused to attend a duly convened MASC procedure, and a losing party may benefit from a mitigation of costs where its reasonable proposal in the MASC process was substantially reflected in the final judgment (Article 394.1 of the LCP).

As a general rule, recoverable attorneys’ fees may not exceed one third of the amount in dispute, unless the court finds that the losing party acted in bad faith or with temerity. Where the amount in dispute cannot be determined, it is deemed, for cost purposes, to be EUR 24,000, although this amount may be adjusted by the court in complex cases (Article 394.3 of the LCP).

Article 727 of the LCP provides a non-exhaustive list of interim measures. Courts may also order any measure necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a future favourable judgment, provided that it is proportionate and cannot be replaced by an equally effective and less burdensome measure for the defendant (Article 726.1 of the LCP). The main measures include precautionary attachment, judicial intervention or administration, deposit of movable assets, precautionary registration of the claim, cease-and-desist or abstention orders and suspension of corporate resolutions (Article 727 of the LCP).

Interim measures are instrumental, provisional and temporary (Article 726.2 of the LCP). They are usually requested together with the statement of claim, although they may be sought prior to the commencement of proceedings, provided that the claim is filed within 20 days (Article 730.2 of the LCP), or later where circumstances so justify (Article 730.4 of the LCP).

The applicant must show both periculum in mora and fumus boni iuris (Article 728 of the LCP). As a rule, security must be provided, although courts may waive this requirement in collective consumer actions and in proceedings concerning unfair contractual terms where the main proceedings are stayed (Law 1/2025).

Interim measures are generally granted inter partes, but may exceptionally be granted ex parte in cases of urgency or risk of frustration (Article 733 of the LCP).

Following Law 1/2025, interim measures may also be requested before and during the mandatory MASC procedure and, if granted, remain in force until the statement of claim is filed, which must take place within 20 days of the termination of the MASC procedure (Article 7.3 of Law 1/2025 and Article 730.2 of the LCP).

The SAL is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (SAL Preamble) and adopts a pro-arbitration approach (Article 7 of the SAL). Arbitration agreements are binding and exclude the jurisdiction of state courts where a timely objection is raised (Article 11 of the SAL). Spanish courts also recognise the principles of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and separability of the arbitration agreement (Article 22.1 of the SAL).

Judicial intervention is limited to the support and supervisory functions expressly provided by law, including the appointment and removal of arbitrators, assistance in the taking of evidence and interim measures in support of arbitration (Articles 8, 15, 19, 33 and 11.3 of the SAL). Arbitral awards may be challenged only through annulment proceedings on the limited grounds set out in the SAL (Articles 40 and 41 of the SAL).

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, arbitrators may grant interim relief where they consider it necessary and may require the applicant to provide appropriate security (Article 23 of the SAL). In institutional arbitrations, applications for interim measures must be made in accordance with the applicable institutional rules (Article 722 of the LCP).

Interim measures ordered by arbitrators are subject to the same enforcement and setting-aside regime as arbitral awards, regardless of their form (Article 23 of the SAL). As arbitrators lack coercive powers, enforcement must be sought before the court of first instance of the place where the measure is to be effective (SAL Preamble and Articles 8.3 and 8.4 of the SAL).

In Spain, arbitral awards are final and have res judicata effect (Article 43 of the SAL). They are not subject to appeal and may only be challenged by annulment or, exceptionally, by the same extraordinary review mechanisms applicable to final court judgments (i.e. where the award is based on false documents, testimony or expert reports, was obtained through bribery or violence, or is affected by a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights declared by the European Court of Human Rights) (Article 43 of the SAL and Article 510 of the LCP).

An award may be set aside only on the grounds exhaustively listed in Article 41 of the SAL, in line with the New York Convention, namely: the absence or invalidity of the arbitration agreement; serious breaches of due process; decisions ultra petita or non-arbitrable matters; irregular constitution of the arbitral tribunal; and violation of public policy. Grounds relating to due process, non-arbitrability and public policy may be reviewed ex officio or at the request of the public prosecutor. Annulment proceedings fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the autonomous community in which the award was rendered, must be brought within two months of notification, and the decision is final and not subject to appeal.

As an EU Member State, Spain applies the following EU instruments to the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments within the EU (excluding arbitral awards):

• Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast);
• Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 (European Enforcement Order);
• Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 (European Small Claims Procedure);
• Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 (European Order for Payment); and
• Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 (European Account Preservation Order).

For judgments originating outside the EU, Spain is part of the 2007 Lugano Convention and the 2019 Hague Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. Spain has also concluded bilateral enforcement and cooperation treaties with Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Canada, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Tunisia, China, Israel and Thailand.

Where no EU instrument or international treaty applies, recognition and enforcement are governed by Law 29/2015 on International Legal Cooperation in Civil Matters (“Law 29/2015”), through an exequatur procedure.

The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is governed by the 1958 New York Convention (“NY Convention”). Spain is also a party to the 1966 Washington (ICSID) Convention on the recognition and enforcement of investment arbitration awards (“ICSID Convention”).

Under the LCP, only decisions based on an enforceable title may be enforced, where enforceable titles mainly include:

• final condemnatory judgments;
• arbitral awards and decisions;
• mediation settlements and party agreements formalised in a public deed under Law 5/2012;
• court-approved settlement agreements reached in pending proceedings;
• enforceable copies of notarial public deeds;
• certified notarial copies of commercial policies or authorised copies thereof;
• bearer or registered securities representing due and payable obligations;
• valid certificates issued by the entities responsible for book-entry securities; and
• certain judicial orders expressly designated by law as enforceable.

Purely declaratory and constitutive judgments are not enforceable, as they do not impose performance obligations (Article 521.1 of the LCP). Final constitutive judgments take effect through registration or similar formalities, without enforcement proceedings (Article 521.2 of the LCP).

First-instance judgments under appeal may be provisionally enforced, without security, except in family matters, judgments ordering a declaration of intent, judgments declaring the nullity or expiry of industrial property rights, and judgments awarding damages for violations of honour, privacy or image rights (Articles 525 to 527 of the LCP).

Opposition to provisional enforcement is only admissible after enforcement has been ordered and only where enforcement would cause an irreversible situation or where the obligation has already been satisfied (Articles 528 and 533 of the LCP). Provisional enforcement of non-final foreign judgments is not permitted, unless expressly provided for in an applicable international treaty (Article 525 of the LCP).

The recognition of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Spain depends on their country of origin and on the existence of applicable international instruments, which prevail over domestic law (Articles 1.2 and 44 of the SAL and Article 523 of the LCP).

Judgments rendered by courts of EU Member States are subject to automatic recognition in Spain under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Final Provision 25th LCP, section 1, rule 1). They are enforceable in Spain without exequatur, provided they are enforceable in the Member State of origin (Final Provision 25th LCP, section 2, rule 1). The applicant must file an authentic copy of the judgment and the standard EU certificate issued by the court of origin confirming its enforceability (Final Provision 25th LCP, section 2, rule 2).

Recognition may be refused only on the limited grounds set out in the Brussels I Recast Regulation, including breach of due process or public policy, and irreconcilability with an earlier judgment concerning the same cause of action or with EU law (Final Provision 25th LCP, sections 4 and 7). Jurisdiction lies with the court of first instance of the defendant’s domicile or of the place where the judgment is to be enforced, in accordance with the general enforcement rules of the LCP (Final Provision 25th LCP, section 4, rule 1).

Judgments from non-EU states are recognised in Spain in accordance with any applicable international treaty or, in the absence thereof, under Law 29/2015 (Article 523.1 of the LCP). Under Law 29/2015, recognition and enforcement require an exequatur application filed by formal claim signed by counsel and a court agent (procurador) (Article 54.1 of Law 29/2015). Jurisdiction lies with the civil section of the court of first instance of the defendant’s domicile or of the place where the judgment is to have effects (Article 52.1 of Law 29/2015).

The applicant must submit the original or an authenticated copy of the judgment, the underlying agreement and proof of service, together with official Spanish translations (Article 54.4 of Law 29/2015 and Article 550.1.1 of the LCP). Once the application is admitted, the defendant has 30 days to file opposition (Article 54.5 of Law 29/2015), and the court must issue its decision within 10 days after the opposition is filed or the deadline expires (Article 54.7 of Law 29/2015).

Recognition will be refused where the judgment infringes public policy or due process, concerns a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Spanish courts, or is irreconcilable with a prior judgment or with pending proceedings in Spain or another country (Article 46.1 of Law 29/2015). Once recognised, the judgment may be registered in the relevant public registers, including the Commercial or Property Register (Article 59 of Law 29/2015).

Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in Spain under the 1958 New York Convention, as supplemented by the SAL (or, where applicable, under the ICSID Convention). Spain has made no reservations to the New York Convention, and recognition is therefore not subject to reciprocity.

The application must be accompanied by the arbitral award, the arbitration agreement and evidence of proper service (Article 550.1.1 of the LCP). Recognition and enforcement follow the procedure applicable to foreign judgments under Law 29/2015 (Article 46.2 of the SAL).

Jurisdiction lies with the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the autonomous community in which the party against whom recognition is sought is domiciled or resident, or, subsidiarily, where the award is to produce its effects (Article 8.6 of the SAL).

In all cases, foreign-language documents must be officially translated, and measures unknown to Spanish law must be adapted to functionally equivalent domestic measures (Article 144.1 of the LCP).

The enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Spain is governed by the same instrument applicable to their recognition, with enforcement carried under the LCP’s rules.

Judgments enforceable in an EU Member State under the Brussels I Recast Regulation are enforced in Spain under the same conditions as domestic judgments, in accordance with the general enforcement rules of the LCP (Final Provision 25th LCP, sections 2 and 3). Enforcement may be refused, at the request of the party against whom enforcement is sought, on any of the grounds listed in Article 45 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Final Provision 25th LCP, section 4). The court of first instance conducting the enforcement proceedings has jurisdiction to rule on any refusal of enforcement (Final Provision 25th LCP, section 4).

Judgments rendered by non-EU courts are enforced in Spain under the LCP once exequatur has been granted (Article 50.2 of Law 29/2015). Jurisdiction lies with the court of first instance that granted the exequatur (Article 52.1 of Law 29/2015). Enforcement must be commenced within five years from the date on which the recognition decision becomes final (Article 518 of the LCP).

Once a foreign arbitral award has been recognised, enforcement is sought before the court of first instance competent under the same territorial criteria as for recognition, namely the court of the respondent’s domicile or of the place where the award is to produce its effects (Article 8.6 of the SAL). Enforcement is governed by the LCP (Article 44 of the SAL).

The enforcement application must include the original or an authenticated copy of the award, the arbitration agreement and evidence of proper service (Article 550.1.1 of the LCP). Enforcement may not be ordered until 20 days after notification of the recognition decision (Article 548 of the LCP) and must be sought within five years from the date on which the recognition decision becomes final (Article 518 of the LCP).

A recognised award remains enforceable notwithstanding pending annulment proceedings at the seat. Enforcement may be stayed at the respondent’s request, subject to the provision of adequate security covering the award and any delay-related damages (Article 45.1 of the SAL).

Once a judgment, arbitral award or other enforceable title has been recognised, enforcement is governed by Article 517 of the LCP and follows the specific regime applicable to the type of obligation, including monetary and non-monetary obligations, wills and specific performance (Articles 571, 592, 607, 629, 630, 636, 640, 648, 676, 699–717 and 708, 710–712 et seq. of the LCP).

In Spain, interim measures lapse upon termination of the proceedings on the merits, unless the case ends with a condemnatory decision. In that event, the measures remain in force during the 20-day voluntary compliance period under Article 548 of the LCP (Article 731.1 of the LCP). They continue during enforcement proceedings and are replaced by enforcement measures once the enforcement order is issued. If enforcement is not sought, or if enforcement is stayed for more than six months for reasons attributable to the enforcing party, the interim measures lapse (Article 731.2 of the LCP).

-